- From: Antonio Nessuno <tichitic@live.it>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:23:34 +0200
- To: <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <SNT126-W5547AD7416DBF9E5511970DEA90@phx.gbl>
So, I try to explain more precisely my problem. The object property "bordering" doesn't bind directly two Buildings but uses an "intermediate" class (called BuildingSpatialRelation) according to the following "schema" First Building-->hasSpatialRelation(Building, BuildingSpatialRelation)-->bordering(BuildingSpatialRelation, Building)-->Second Building So, it's a combination of object properties "hasSpatialRelation" and "bordering" that concretely express the bordering relation between the two buildings. Now, what I can't understand, it'is how could be possible to express that "bordering" relation imply , at geometric level, a geometric relation, for instance "touching" between the corresponding buildings' solids. I thought that a possible solution is reappling the previous "schema" in this way: First Solid-->hasGeometriclRelation(Solid, BuildingSpatialRelation)-->touching(BuildingSpatialRelation, Solid)-->Second Solid, declaring "touching" as a subProperty of "bordering" and "hasGeometricRelation" as subProperty of "hasSpatialRelation": objectProperty:hasGeometricRelation subPropertyOf:hasSpatialRelation domain:Solid range:BuildingSpatialRelation objectProperty:touching subPropertyOf:bordering domain:BuildingSpatialRelation range:Solid However, I suppose that such solution, beyond making ontology incoherent, realize a "touching" relation which does not bind the corrisponding solids of the buildings involved in the relation of "bordering" (In other words, I think cannot get the right "Building.Solid" as in object modeling).. I would accept with pleasure every advice. Thank you all. Regards, Antonio A.
Received on Thursday, 29 July 2010 14:25:13 UTC